Yes, they knew - but so what? You're missing the point. We're here to be punished (and this is more important than reform, for reasons already explain...
That would only be if rehabilitation was the primary purpose. We can infer, then, that it is not. The goal of retribution - of harming a person due to...
No, the question 'does' presuppose such a person. And it is not an 'arbitrary' assumption. It's what the question presupposes. Brian. Brian says so. I...
I don't see that. It's just not clear what someone is asking, hence the need to ask for clarification. After all "what's the meaning of life?" could b...
I didn't say that it did. The question, as it stands, is vague and ambiguous. Hence the need to ask for clarity. But if it turns out that the question...
No, I don't see why one would expect it to be clear that we are being punished, or clear why. Ignorance of why exactly we are here is plausibly part o...
Those options don't seem likely though. If it was a job aside from the one expressed in c, then we'd expect clear instructions. The purpose of our bei...
Highly unlikely. Yes. From which it would be fallacious to infer that therefore weather itself is subjective. Which is the same fallacy that those who...
I have not argued that immaterial minds are caused by the brain. Consciousness is a state of mind, yes? It's not a thing. It's a state. A state of a t...
This is getting tedious as it is beside the point. But no, it isn't extended in space, because what you're talking about is a set of beliefs - yes? - ...
They're not extended in space. They're not objects and they're not extended in space (unless you meant actual churches - as in the buildings - they ar...
No, I refer you to my earlier answer. Yes, not really the issue though. Well, we're not going to have a profitable conversation then, are we? I am goi...
By 'closed' do you mean to exclude immaterial objects? If so, then you are begging the question. If the system includes them, then two-way interaction...
No, your position is unreasonable. You're taking to be good evidence what is in fact clearly very weak evidence. Dreams are actually better evidence -...
If the mind is an immaterial object and not a material object, then one does not have to explain how consciousness arises from material substances, do...
That's why I said "yes?" just to confirm that you agree. Something extended in space. A 'thing' incidentally, is a bearer of properties. So, if someth...
Contrary to what you say, this commonly happens. "Did I remember that, or dream it?" is a common refrain. But anyway, even if most of those who have N...
What are you on about? Mental events appear to cause sensible events, yes? I decided - mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised - sensible ev...
So, just to be clear, you think the mind is immaterial, and that there is causation between material and immaterial - that material events in the brai...
So causal interactions can take place between material and immaterial entities. If a physical event can cause a non-physical event, why can't a non-ph...
So the brain interacted with the mind. On your view. You think the mind is immaterial. Mental events are events of the mind (in case you didn't know)....
Right. So when I decided - a mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised, what happened there? Your view must be that it was pure coincidence th...
Yes, you're confident. But apparently ignorant. For rather than present any kind of challenge to any of the arguments I have made, you have scoffed an...
What's your position - are you a materialist or an immaterialist about the mind? Say which, and then we'll go from there. Because either way you're go...
Well, you just stipulated that the laws apply to physical things alone. That's question begging. If the laws in question govern the totality of what e...
No. Your body will. Not your mind. Unless you're not an immaterialist about the mind. In which case, yes. It will. So, you're either a materialist abo...
Ah, there you go - begging the question again. You really don't understand, do you? There's no violation of those laws. You have to add to those laws ...
Odd that for someone who describes themselves as a philosophical rooky you are so confident about these matters. Methinks your humility was b/s, yes? ...
By causing it. I mean, what do you want by way of an account here? When it comes to causation - and let's just stick to causation between sensible thi...
Yes, if that's what causal interaction requires. Note, this is also what would happen if the mind is your brain, right? So, either way the answer is '...
No, you're simply not getting this. You're thinking B causes C out of the blue. No. A - which is a sensible event - causes B - which is a mental event...
Er, no - they were right about the immaterialism of the mind. Their arguments are among the 14. No one has refuted them. (You said you were a philosop...
No, this is how it works. Event A - brain event - causes event B - mental event. Event B causes event C - brain event. We can sensibly detect A and C,...
What exactly do you mean by the mind/body problem? It's not the name of anything very clear. And yes, I have 14 arguments for the immateriality of the...
Comments